Noise: Loudest issue in Tamworth not primary focus of Army Corps review

Corps attorney won't discuss Focus:Tamworth challenge, cites chance of lawsuit

Nate Giarnese

TAMWORTH—The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attorney who shepherded a vigorous 18-month review of a wetlands permit application for racetrack developer Club Motorsports Inc. said on Thursday the federal agency's primary focus in these reviews is "aquatic impact." Noise, the basis of an appeal by the citizens' group Focus:Tamworth, is only one of about 20 "collateral" factors also being considered, he said.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attorney Michael Hicks said because the challenge to the federal permit by Tamworth activist group Focus:Tamworth could eventually develop into a legal suit, he could not comment directly on the matter. He said he had heard of the group's plans to file an appeal, but that he had received nothing in writing by Thursday afternoon, April 27.

Focus:Tamworth is fighting a 251-acre driving sports country club. This controversial track, years in development, is a place where wealthy drivers would learn to race their high-performance cars.

The statements about noise being secondary to aquatic issues came during a brief telephone interview with Hicks, who is based in Massachusetts. He commented only days after the citizen's watchdog organization, Focus:Tamworth, issued a press release faulting the Corps for allegedly not abiding by the recommendation of its sound engineers.

The Corps apparently is allowing looser limits than recommended by its own contracted engineers for the highly contentious resort, the construction of which remains held up due to ongoing opposition.

The group said it would formally challenge the permit based on what they called insufficient noise limits. Noise has emerged lately as arguably the strongest source of debate. In what was described as an unusual development over a year ago, the Corps hired independent experts to break a stalemate between two competing professional sound studies: one commissioned by developer CMI, and another, which differed sharply, that was supported by Focus:Tamworth.

CMI's study, which formed part of the basis for its federal application, was found to be flawed. The Corps engineers found this study relied on flawed methods, and resulted in sound restrictions which — unless stiffened — could lead to a new continual kind of noise reverberating down into Tamworth.

Focus:Tamworth says the Corps should have adopted stricter limits based on its own study, and in accord with a recently enacted town sound ordinance. But CMI called the ordinance a Focus:Tamworth concoction, targeting only the track and not a noisy rock crusher or log yard nearby. Under the ordinance, the company said, the track won't be able run at least some of its envisioned events, and could not, as a whole, function. Focus:Tamworth and other have shot back that the town law, which three selectmen on Thursday promised to uphold, was developed by volunteers and stands as the offspring of a grass-roots democracy.

In another recent development, the company's president, Lloyd Dahmen, at a meeting of the board on Thursday, called publicly for a special ballot vote in Tamworth, hoping his supporters in town would be able to turn the tide at the polls and ease the restrictions.

In this surprise personal visit to the small but polarized town, the 65-year-old executive rekindled old arguments. Some grew offended, even enraged that he dared challenge the results of Town Meeting, and their established democratic process. But others, some wearing company shirts and hats emblazoned with the red Club Motorsports logo, appeared to support in full force the chance to cast paper ballots during a full day of voting. Dahmen said this measure alone would decide once and for all the majority view.

The town so far has been split, with some welcoming with open arms CMI's promised jobs and tax relief; and others, including Focus, seeing a massive environmental hazard looming unchecked by local regulations. The company has made some effort to duck local laws and permits it felt were inappropriate, or even unconstitutional, leaving some opponents fuming. Instead, the developer has trumpeted its victories on the federal and state levels — building permits have been granted by the Corps and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Meanwhile, politics and soaring tensions on the ground have clouded the processes.

Of the federal review completed last year in accord with the U.S. Clean Water Act, Hicks said, "The primary evaluation is impact to the aquatic environment." The Corps found the project, which was to include some blasting, will not negatively impact the nearby wetlands, including the trout-filled and well-kayaked Bearcamp River and its tributaries.

Other "public interest factors" are considered in all such reviews, and there are many including, air quality, historic impact and sound, he said.

"Do they have as much weight as aquatic impact? I'm really not the one to say," Hicks said.

"They are looked at," he said.